Drivers of Adoption of Sustainable Prickly Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) Innovations and Conservation Agriculture by Smallholder Farmers in Morocco

Citation: Slot, L.E.; Fort, F. Drivers of Adoption of Sustainable Prickly Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) Innovations and Conservation Agriculture by Smallholder Farmers in Morocco. Agronomy 2024,14, 3014. https:// doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14123014 Academic Editors: Luigi Morra, Eugenio Cozzolino, Zhenwei Song and Peter J. Batt Received: 28 August 2024 Revised: 13 December 2024 Accepted: 16 December 2024 Published: 18 December 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Article Drivers of Adoption of Sustainable Prickly Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) Innovations and Conservation Agriculture by Smallholder Farmers in Morocco Laura Eline Slot 1and Fatiha Fort 2,* 1 Institut National de Recherche Pour L’agriculture, L’alimentation et L’environnement (INRAE), 2 Place Pierre Viala, 34000 Montpellier, France; [email protected] 2Institut Agro Montpellier, 2 Place Pierre Viala, 34000 Montpellier, France *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Climate change poses significant challenges for countries in Northern Africa such as Morocco. Smallholder farmers are especially vulnerable to climate change because they experience several challenges in the adoption of climate-resilient practices. The sustainable and well-managed cultivation of the cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) could contribute to conservation agriculture (CA) in dry climates threatened by climate change. Due to its high-water-use efficiency and ability to withstand extremely dry conditions, the cactus pear is increasingly being recognised as a more sustainable alternative to traditional livestock foraging in dryland areas. Compared to many other common crops and fodder, the cactus pear is easy to establish, maintain, and has a wealth of uses. Two innovative cultivation techniques are being developed: (1) the use of mixed inoculum formulations containing AMF (Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi) and PGPB (Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria) in the soil; and (2) intercropping between perennial (cactus pear) and short-term species (field crops). We propose to identify factors that could facilitate farmers’ innovation adoption. We conducted face-to-face interviews with 24 smallholder cactus pear farmers in Morocco. We concluded that farmers do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of the principles of the innovations. The main aim of farmers was to increase production and income. Farmers, in general, pay little attention to the environment. The recommendations that are given in relation to these issues are that training and social networks are essential in innovation transfer, adoption needs to be facilitated by providing resources, an innovation transfer needs to be adapted to the current and future needs of farmers, and we need patience so that farmers can slowly learn the innovations. Keywords: climate change; climate-resilient practices; farmers’ income; Mediterranean agriculture; drought resistance 1. Introduction Climate change poses significant challenges for ‘developing’ countries in Northern Africa such as Morocco because it causes high temperatures, droughts and soil degradation [ 1 – 3 ]. A statistically significant trend towards drier conditions has been detected in several Moroccan regions [ 4 ]. Currently, Morocco is trying to be a “model country” for green energy, even when it experiences challenges in reaching its sustainability goals, especially in rural regions where there is a high level of poverty [ 5 , 6 ]. This happens in a rural context of high poverty (14.4%) and vulnerability rates (23.6%) [ 7 ]. Smallholder farmers are especially vulnerable to climate change and because they live in marginal areas, they lack access to technical and financial support [8]. The cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) is seen as a well-suited crop for harsh and arid areas, providing an interesting option for the farmers there [ 9 ]. Recent interest in the crop’s multiple potential uses as a feed source and protection against soil erosion and water loss Agronomy 2024,14, 3014. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14123014 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 2 of 15 has opened up opportunities for export, job creation and income generation for smallholder farmers [9,10]. The cactus pear is often used as a fence around houses and small towns; fence plants are also used for fruit production and, in the dry season, as a source of forage. Fruits are harvested from unmanaged plantations and are used for home consumption or sold on local markets. The Opuntia cladodes are used as feed for small ruminants and camels. Nevertheless, the sustainable and well-managed cultivation of the cactus pear could contribute to conservation agriculture (CA) in dry areas threatened by climate change [ 11 , 12 ]. For some years cactus pear production has been increasing and the annual production in Morocco was reported to exceed 1.2 million tonnes from 150,000 hectares in 2011 [ 13 ]. At that time, the country started programmes to further expand the cultivation in arid regions (with UN support) [13]. As to make use of the potential beneficial effects of the cactus pear in the dry Moroccan climate, there is a need to focus on sustainable cultivation techniques [ 11 ]. CA innovations currently experience many challenges in their adoption like soil erosion and excessive pesticide and fuel use [ 14 , 15 ]. Sustainable practices that focus on soil cover and organic matter enhancement are displaying positive results for many farmers and could improve local resilience against climate change [16,17]. This paper is based on results of a research project that focuses on ‘Promoting soil fertility, yield and income in Smallholder Agriculture of semiarid and arid Mediterranean regions by management of beneficial soil microbiota, conservation agriculture and intercropping’. This project looks at the potential adoption of a combination of several CA innovations by cactus pear farmers. This includes the use of mixed inocula containing AMF (Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi) and PGPB (Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria) in the soil and intercropping between perennial (cactus pear) and short-term species (field crops). The aim of developing these innovations is to reduce soil erosion and the use of chemical inputs, to increase crop productivity/quality and soil fertility and to stimulate smallholder associations and knowledge [18]. The development of CA innovations could be made part of a viable strategy to contribute to the food security of smallholder farmers, but they currently experience many challenges in their adoption and diffusion [ 19 ]. Many of the commonly used options in response to climate change are resource-intensive and beyond the reach of resource-poor smallholder farmers. Ecosystem-based practices, like intercropping, may be more accessible to smallholder farmers as they are based on the management of existing resources. This provides the opportunity for farmers to adapt according to their contexts, needs and experiences and to combine multiple practices that provide long-term resilience [8]. Based on a farmer-centred innovation adoption perspective, we propose in this paper to identify the main drivers and barriers to the adoption of technological innovations by smallholder farmers. The Literature on Farmer’s Innovation Adoption There is a substantial body of the literature on the adoption of innovations by (smallholder) farmers. Several authors have talked about the need to look at the economic, social, technical and ecological viability of a specific innovation [ 20 , 21 ]. It is important to build partnerships with farmers in the value chain to enhance innovation, as these partnerships can integrate profitability, societal needs and environmental sustainability [22]. Until now, studies have looked at the extrinsic factors impacting adoption rather than at how farmers perceive the benefits and challenges of innovations. Even if researchers observe advantages of an innovation, farmers do not necessarily perceive this in the same way [ 23 ]. There is a gap between the development of sustainable practices and the implementation of these practices, which is thought to reflect the low adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers because of constraints in their ability to invest in resilient practices [ 8 ]. More in-depth research is needed into how smallholder farmer’s decision making varies across different farming practices and socioeconomic conditions. Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 3 of 15 A farmer-centred approach can be used to engage smallholder farmers in the development of context-specific innovations [ 24 ]. A good understanding of the local context and the farmer response can provide information about pitfalls and opportunities [ 15 , 25 ]. The adoption of innovations by (smallholder) farmers is determined by many factors: the availability of technology and infrastructure, human resources, knowledge transfer, access to (public) extension services, financial resources, market access, risk perception, land/property rights, social interaction, gender, food security, agriculture dependency, agro-ecological conditions and attitudes towards the environment [ 9 , 25 – 30 ]. Research is needed to gain a better understanding of these determinants [31,32]. There is a need to study innovations that are accessible for smallholder farmers and fit their agro-ecological and socioeconomic contexts [ 8 ]. To define the relevant adoption factors, interviews with Moroccan smallholder cactus pear farmers were conducted and analysed about farm and farmer characteristics, costs and benefits, as well as preferences, experiences and attitudes in innovation adoption. This paper begins with an introduction to the study area. It then examines the methodology. The results are then presented in several sections. Finally, the discussion, conclusions and recommendations are presented. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area This study took place in Morocco. The economic growth of North African countries depends on the sustainable use of water resources due to the (semi)arid climate. This is why they need crops that can adapt and grow in these areas [ 33 ]. Morocco is already on the arid side of the climate class spectrum, with six interviewed farmers living in an arid climate, fifteen farmers living in a semi-arid climate and three farmers living in a dry sub-humid climate (Appendix A). The average annual rainfall does not exceed 412 mm in all of the Moroccan regions. It was observed that more dry periods are taking place in several regions of Morocco compared to the past, which challenges several agricultural practices. In this case, it becomes clear that the cactus pear is suitable in terms of climate and a rather important plant species for smallholder farmers in Morocco [ 34 ]. The cactus pear is often planted for fencing off an agricultural area [ 12 ]. The cactus pear is a suitable crop for personal consumption and care, animal feed and commercial purposes [ 35 ]. Moroccans also eat the fruits, providing them with a source of fibre, vitamin C, antioxidants and laxative properties [ 35 ]. Traditionally, a small amount of the fruit production (10%) is used locally and a large part (80%) is sold fresh on the national market [36]. 2.2. Farmer’s Questionnaire The farmer-centred approach was used to define the variables that can affect the adoption of innovations by smallholder farmers. Different variables were used to make a questionnaire including: (i) environmental regional data; (ii) identification; (iii) housing; (iv) farm; (v) cactus plantation; (vi) technical knowledge; (vii) agricultural practices; (viii) production system; (ix) product processing; (x) marketing; (xi) benefits, constraints and support needs; (xii) income and expenses; (xiii) farmer behaviour towards innovation; (xiv) knowledge and practices about soil fertility; and (xv) willingness to adopt innovations. The questionnaire was used in structured face-to-face interviews, which were carried out in May and June 2023 with smallholder farmers who were cultivating the cactus pear in seven regions of Morocco. 2.3. Sampling A sample of farmers was found by using snowball sampling. This method consists of asking each interviewee to identify another person to contact for an interview. Snowball sampling can be a useful way to conduct research about farmers who have experience with cactus pear cultivation. Through this process, a sample size of 24 Moroccan farmers was gained in different regions of Morocco (sample list in Appendix A). This research is qualita- Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 4 of 15 tive, so it does not seek to be representative of the whole population of Moroccan farmers. Instead, this research discovers the factors and mechanisms that influence agricultural innovation adoption in different climatic conditions (Appendix A). The interviews with these respondents each took about 1–1.5 h per person (including, e.g., eating, drinking, phone calls and smoking). The respondents could speak the language in which they were most comfortable. This meant that all of the interviews were conducted in the Moroccan dialect. The answers were written down next to the questions, after which each form was signed by the participant to acknowledge their consent. Adding to that, some observational notes were made. 2.4. Data Analysis After executing the interviews, the answers were translated into English and the data were implemented and categorised in Microsoft Excel. Suitable methods and procedures were used to analyse the innovation adoption factors. The environmental factors were combined, so that the environmental context of each region was defined. Then, the answers to the open questions of the interviews were given different codes using Excel and they were divided into code groups/themes. This can be completed in either an inductive or deductive fashion or using elements of both [ 37 ]. This research used both inductive and deductive elements. The concepts which were derived from the literature were implemented into the coding, but the data had influence on the codes which were applied in the end. All the information about the farm and the farmer as well as their environment was combined to develop a farmer typology [29]. 3. Main Results We present the results of this research in three separate sections. In Section 3.1, the traditional production process followed by the cactus pear farmers interviewed is explained. Section 3.2 discusses the potential adoption of innovations by these farmers. Finally, the factors that may be associated with the adoption of innovations are presented (Section 3.3). 3.1. Farm Characteristics and Production Resources All of the interviewed farmers were men. All of these farmers were married, except the youngest interviewed farmer. Women play a role in the cooperative, processing and selling part, but the wives of these farmers are in the background of the farmer’s home. The age of the farmers was mainly between 40 and 59; only six farmers were younger than 40 and three were older than 60. A total of 11 out of 24 farmers had a formal education level up to primary education, which means that they had education until the age of 12. Four of the farmers did not have any formal education. Four farmers had reached a secondary education level, and three farmers reached a tertiary (professional school/university) level of education. Many of the interviewed farmers own minimally managed cactus fields without adopting a lot of new techniques or equipment and none of the farmers use electricity. According to almost all of the farmers (23), they use a traditional production system in their farming. Only one farmer said that he uses a semi-intensive production system instead. Another farmer uses both systems, meaning that he made a semi-intensive system in two plots while the other plots remained traditional. The household size determines the amount of human resources that are available on the farm. Most farmer households consist of household sizes that extend outside of the nuclear family, with more than two adults per household (20 households). These adults provide the workforce for the households which mostly exceed four members (23 households). A five-hectare area was used as a threshold for smallholder farmers. Medium-sized farms are 5–15 hectares and large farms are +15 hectares [ 38 ]. According to these criteria, 16 of the interviewed farmers are smallholders, five own medium-sized farms and three own Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 5 of 15 large farms. All of the interviewed farmers live in a self-owned house and own land; there are only a few farmers who make use of rented (four farmers) or collective (one farmer) land. Most of their cultivated land is rain fed and only two farmers own a small amount of irrigated area. From Table 1it becomes clear that knowledge transfer through social interaction plays an important role in the knowledge acquisition of the interviewed farmers. The two farmers with no level of and beginner-level education both only rely on daily practice for their knowledge acquisition. Farmers who say that they have an intermediate and experienced level of knowledge rely more on social interaction, meaning heritage (17 farmers) and trainings (2 farmers). As a knowledge channel, most farmers (16) use direct contact, but some farmers (10) also use the Internet to connect with others. Table 1. Source, channel and level of knowledge of interviewed cactus pear farmers about cactus pear cultivation. Source and Channel of Knowledge Level of Knowledge About Cactus Pear Cultivation No Level Beginner Intermediate Experienced Heritage 0 0 10 7 Daily practice 1 1 2 3 Training 0 0 2 0 Direct contact 1 1 7 6 Internet 0 1 5 4 In terms of access to transportation infrastructure, almost half of the interviewed farmers (10) do not own a means of transport. In addition, none of the interviewed farmers own heavier means of transport like a pick-up truck and instead, cars, motorcycles, bicycles and animal-drawn carts are more common. Additionally, some farmers live a few kilometres away from a paved road, which makes it hard to travel. Some interviewed farmers have fewer resources than others; this is shown through the asset index (domestic assets, transport, livestock and farming equipment). Using the asset-based approach of Morris et al. [ 39 ], the wealth of the farmer respondents was categorised so that different wealth levels were distinguished. This is an approach that aggregates assets into an index using weights for each asset equal to the proportion of households who do not own this asset. The assumption is made that only the few wealthiest households would be likely to own an asset with a high monetary value [ 40 ]. Following [ 39 ], the asset score was derived by assigning to each asset (g) a weight equal to the reciprocal of the proportion of the study households who owns one or multiple units of that asset (w g ), then multiplying that weight by the number of units of assets owned by the household (f g ) and summing the product over all assets. Thus, for each household (j), the following equation was used: G ∑ g=1 fgj ×wg Then, the asset scores for all farmers were divided into quartiles and they were categorised into different socioeconomic positions according to their score so that they could be compared with each other [39] (Figure 1). The Asset Index distribution among the farmers (Table 2and Figure 1) presents a great diversity of farmer’s wealth, with a minimum that is lower than 10 and a maximum that is higher than 90. If we look to the observed distribution of wealth (Table 2), we can see that the different farmers are equally divided between the different categories. This means that there is no over-representation of one wealth category. Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 6 of 15 Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 that is higher than 90. If we look to the observed distribution of wealth (Table 2), we can see that the different farmers are equally divided between the different categories. This means that there is no over-representation of one wealth category. Figure 1. Asset indices of farmers, with 1st quartile (red), 2nd quartile (yellow), 3rd quartile (green), 4th quartile (blue). Table 2. Distribution of asset index. Category Range Number of Farmers 1st quartile (red) 6.78–14.33 6 2nd quartile (yellow) 14.33–23.41 6 3rd quartile (green) 23.41–31.12 6 4th quartile (blue) 31.12–91.82 6 The housing quality of most Moroccan farmers is good; only one farmer seems to live in a poor housing condition. Several cactus pear farmers own multiple livestock species (e.g., quails, chickens and bees), which are seen as both an asset and a source of income as they can provide products like eggs, honey, milk and meat. The fresh cactus pear fruit is the main product from the cactus pear crop that these Moroccan farmers are manually harvesting. The farmer uses some kind of grass or foam, which he rubs on the skin of the fruit to remove the spines. After that, he can either eat or sell the fruit, without hurting himself. Eight farmers harvest the cladodes and six of these farmers sell these cladodes to the market. One farmer made it a habit to sell also the cactus pear flowers. The cactus pear seed oil is the main marketed product when the fresh fruit is not available (observations). Farmers do not process the fruits into cactus pear oil themselves; organisations, specifically cooperatives, perform the oil pressing and sell it as a beauty product. However, due to a cochineal pest infestation (Dactylopius opuntiae), many cooperatives that were involved in cactus pear processing have been closed down and many farmers have stopped any processing activities that they did before (observations). None of the farmers process and/or sell processed cactus pear products for the market. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Asset index N° farmer Figure 1. Asset indices of farmers, with 1st quartile (red), 2nd quartile (yellow), 3rd quartile (green), 4th quartile (blue). Table 2. Distribution of asset index. Category Range Number of Farmers 1st quartile (red) 6.78–14.33 6 2nd quartile (yellow) 14.33–23.41 6 3rd quartile (green) 23.41–31.12 6 4th quartile (blue) 31.12–91.82 6 The housing quality of most Moroccan farmers is good; only one farmer seems to live in a poor housing condition. Several cactus pear farmers own multiple livestock species (e.g., quails, chickens and bees), which are seen as both an asset and a source of income as they can provide products like eggs, honey, milk and meat. The fresh cactus pear fruit is the main product from the cactus pear crop that these Moroccan farmers are manually harvesting. The farmer uses some kind of grass or foam, which he rubs on the skin of the fruit to remove the spines. After that, he can either eat or sell the fruit, without hurting himself. Eight farmers harvest the cladodes and six of these farmers sell these cladodes to the market. One farmer made it a habit to sell also the cactus pear flowers. The cactus pear seed oil is the main marketed product when the fresh fruit is not available (observations). Farmers do not process the fruits into cactus pear oil themselves; organisations, specifically cooperatives, perform the oil pressing and sell it as a beauty product. However, due to a cochineal pest infestation (Dactylopius opuntiae), many cooperatives that were involved in cactus pear processing have been closed down and many farmers have stopped any processing activities that they did before (observations). None of the farmers process and/or sell processed cactus pear products for the market. The farmers usually produce for the local fresh market and just five farmers produce for a larger market. None of the farmers produce for export. According to farmers, the greatest benefit of cactus pear farming is the drought resistance of the crop as it helps them to use fewer resources. The farmers are also happy about Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 7 of 15 the medicinal virtues, economic profitability, crop production in summer, fodder production and a favourable climate and soil (Table 3). Yet, this is threatened by cochineal pest infestations. The farmers also mention constraints in cactus pear valorisation, the physical difficulties of farming, transport, marketing, water scarcity and technical constraints. Table 3. Main benefits of cactus pear cultivation. Benefits of Cactus Pear Farm According to Farmers Answers 1st Answer 2nd Answer 3rd Answer 4th Answer Total Answers Drought resistance 12 6 1 0 19 Use as fodder 1 3 5 0 9 Economic profitability/Income 4 2 2 0 8 Medicinal virtues of the fruit 1 4 2 0 7 Favourable climate and soil 2 1 2 0 5 Limited need of inputs 0 3 1 1 5 Summer product 1 1 1 0 3 Total mentioned benefits 21 20 14 1 56 3.2. Potential Innovation Adoption According to the first technological innovation based on intercropping, a few of the farmers sometimes use intercropping with annual or other perennial species, so these farmers do not need to change much regarding this part of the innovations. Nevertheless, most farmers do not grow cactus pears in rows with rows of intercrops in between, but use mixed cropping with random patches of cactus pear and some other crops. For the second innovation about the use of bacteria and mycorrhiza fungi, none of the farmers display knowledge about beneficial soil bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi, microbial fertilisers, biostimulants or biochar. Additionally, less than half of the farmers (10) use a type of fertiliser. Eight farmers let part of their land lay fallow so that it can recharge for the next crop. About half of the interviewed farmers (11) give importance to soil fertility, but the other farmers (13) say that soil fertility is not important. They do not give importance to the soil fertility, even though that most of the farmers mention that many of their farming plots have poor soil fertility (32 plots) (Figure 2). Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 The farmers usually produce for the local fresh market and just five farmers produce for a larger market. None of the farmers produce for export. According to farmers, the greatest benefit of cactus pear farming is the drought resistance of the crop as it helps them to use fewer resources. The farmers are also happy about the medicinal virtues, economic profitability, crop production in summer, fodder production and a favourable climate and soil (Table 3). Yet, this is threatened by cochineal pest infestations. The farmers also mention constraints in cactus pear valorisation, the physical difficulties of farming, transport, marketing, water scarcity and technical constraints. Table 3. Main benefits of cactus pear cultivation. Benefits of Cactus Pear Farm According to Farmers Answers 1st Answer 2nd Answer 3rd Answer 4th Answer Total Answers Drought resistance 12 6 1 0 19 Use as fodder 1 3 5 0 9 Economic profitability/Income 4 2 2 0 8 Medicinal virtues of the fruit 1 4 2 0 7 Favourable climate and soil 2 1 2 0 5 Limited need of inputs 0 3 1 1 5 Summer product 1 1 1 0 3 Total mentioned benefits 21 20 14 1 56 3.2. Potential Innovation Adoption According to the first technological innovation based on intercropping, a few of the farmers sometimes use intercropping with annual or other perennial species, so these farmers do not need to change much regarding this part of the innovations. Nevertheless, most farmers do not grow cactus pears in rows with rows of intercrops in between, but use mixed cropping with random patches of cactus pear and some other crops. For the second innovation about the use of bacteria and mycorrhiza fungi, none of the farmers display knowledge about beneficial soil bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi, microbial fertilisers, biostimulants or biochar. Additionally, less than half of the farmers (10) use a type of fertiliser. Eight farmers let part of their land lay fallow so that it can recharge for the next crop. About half of the interviewed farmers (11) give importance to soil fertility, but the other farmers (13) say that soil fertility is not important. They do not give importance to the soil fertility, even though that most of the farmers mention that many of their farming plots have poor soil fertility (32 plots) (Figure 2). Figure 2. Soil fertility of farm plots on the land according to farmers. 19 17 32 0 10 20 30 40 Good Average Poor Number of plots Soil fertility SOIL FERTILITY OF ALL FARM PLOTS Figure 2. Soil fertility of farm plots on the land according to farmers. However, farmers have some knowledge about and use practices that reinforce the soil fertility (Table 4). Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 8 of 15 Table 4. The soil fertility practices that farmers know and use. Soil Fertility Practices Which Farmers Know Versus Use Know (Number) Know (%) Use (Number) Use (%) Farmyard manure 24 100 11 46 Mineral fertilisers 24 100 3 13 Crop rotation 10 42 9 38 Mixed cropping 10 42 2 8 Mulch 8 33 4 17 Compost 7 29 0 0 Reduced tillage 5 21 3 13 Green manure 4 17 1 4 AMF and PGPB 0 0 0 0 Microbial fertilisers 0 0 0 0 Biostimulants 0 0 0 0 Biochar 0 0 0 0 Farmers use these practices for different reasons: crop rotation is used for yield improvement and because it is part of heritage and usual practices, mixed cropping is used because it is part of the usual practices, mulching is used for water conservation and fertilisation and farmyard manure and mineral fertilisers are used for fertilisation and yield improvement. The other farmers do not plough the soil for cactus pear production. For intercropping and the use of beneficial microorganisms, a no/minimal tillage system is the most suitable system. All of the farmers are interested in learning more about beneficial soil bacteria and mycorrhiza for income improvement, knowledge development, quality improvement, yield improvement, curiosity or organic production (Table 5). Table 5. Main reasons for learning more about the innovation. Why Are Farmers Interested in Learning More About Beneficial Soil Bacteria and Mycorrhiza? Reasons Number of Farmers % of Farmers Income improvement 12 50 Knowledge development 4 17 Quality improvement 3 13 Yield improvement 2 8 Curiosity 1 4 Organic production 1 4 However, they do not know how to answer the question about what they expect from the innovations. Ten farmers say that there are multiple differences between the innovations and their current practices, but they do not know what the differences are. Many farmers (18) think that the innovations fit their cultural traditions, as they can improve yields, modernise current practices, improve income and make work easier. Six farmers indicate that the innovations might not fit with their traditions and current practices, but they can again not tell the reasons (Table 6). Agronomy 2024,14, 3014 9 of 15 Table 6. Farmers’ opinions about proposed innovations. How Do Innovations Fit in Traditions of Farmers? Reasons Number % of Farmers Improves yields of current crops 6 25 Does not fit/no benefit 6 25 Fits, but no reason 5 21 Improves income 4 17 Modernises current practices 2 8 Makes work easier 1 4 Only five farmers are willing to adopt the innovations. According to them, the factors that might accelerate their decision making towards adopting the innovations are financial aid, training, profitability, availability of equipment and technological advantages (Table 7). Table 7. Facilitators of innovation adoption. What Do Farmers Need to Adopt Innovations? Needs Number % of Farmers Financial aid 6 25 Training 4 17 Profitability of innovations 3 13 Equipment 1 4 Technological advantages 1 4 This is in line with what the farmers say they need for their farm in general. Receiving training is one of the most important needs as only two farmers have followed a training until now. Many farmers also say that they are in need of financial support, an increase in the availability of pesticides and technical equipment and fertilisers. Farmers will need to make different investments to be able to use intercropping and the inoculum of beneficial microorganisms in their farm. They need to buy and apply the inoculum, which is not yet sold commercially (it is produced in-lab by the project partners). The farmers also need to measure their soil fertility to know how much inoculum to use, so they will need to pay for an analysis of their soil. They will also need to plant an intercrop for which there are costs for the seeds and planting in rows. Training sessions to learn the techniques will be organised, which will take time and money (e.g., for transport) from farmers to be able to join. The innovations will provide several expected benefits. For example, AMF inoculation could enhance the relative water content (RWC) in inoculated cladodes (in progress). Secondly, soil fertility could be increased (in progress). Thirdly, AMF inoculation has a positive effect on the number of new cladodes and their size. 3.3. Factors That Are Potentially Related to Innovation Adoption Cactus pear production provides some income for the interviewed farmers, but the amount is relatively low. This means that the income that comes from the cactus pear does not cover the living costs of an average Moroccan household (21% of the living cost per year). Even the farmer who earns the highest return from cactus pear production does not surpass 43% of the living cost and the farmer with the lowest return covers only 4% of the living cost. One farmer explained about the risks involved in relying solely on the income of cactus pear farming. That is why he diversified his income by working on other businesses, e.g.,